Potter, there is a reason companies like Google—who provide a "street view" free to the world—have to blur people's faces. Despite the fact that those people are "in public" it does not give Google the "right" to use their likeness without permission. It would be nearly impossible to get permission of all the people on the street. As such, Google is forced to blur their faces.

They are using the images commercially. Big difference from what was posted here.

The same logic goes for photography.

No it does not when used in the context the OP did, with all due respect.

Actually Mako, there is a very thin line with the internet in the new photography laws, especially those taught at colleges. When a photo is posted to the internet, to a "service, forum or company" those photos then become subject to the rules and regulations of each.

Yes, and and no rule, regulation or law was broken in this case.

In short, if DPReview.com featured copy in their ToS that said they could use those photos posted on its forum to publicize its service, photos like those above then become commercial images.

If they were used to publicize their service. None of the pictures here were used in that way. Other pics on the home page are indeed treated different when used to publicize its service.

Hence why it becomes a legal issue when posting pictures of other people to the internet without their permission.

Not in this context.

There is no defending the images above, not because of their subject material, how they are dressed or their focus, but because they feature people, up close without their permission, that have been posted to the internet.